[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: message-Id has localhost
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: message-Id has localhost |
Date: |
Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:56:38 -0500 |
>> 2) The recommendation for Message-IDs is to use a domain name for the
>> right-hand side
>
>Recommendation or rule? I don't recall.
Officially, from RFC 5322 §3.6.4:
Note: As with addr-spec, a liberal syntax is given for the right-
hand side of the "@" in a msg-id. However, later in this section,
the use of a domain for the right-hand side of the "@" is
RECOMMENDED. Again, the syntax of domain constructs is specified
by and used in other protocols (e.g., [RFC1034], [RFC1035],
[RFC1123], [RFC5321]). It is therefore incumbent upon
implementations to conform to the syntax of addresses for the
context in which they are used.
[...]
The message identifier (msg-id) itself MUST be a globally unique
identifier for a message. The generator of the message identifier
MUST guarantee that the msg-id is unique. There are several
algorithms that can be used to accomplish this. Since the msg-id has
a similar syntax to addr-spec (identical except that quoted strings,
comments, and folding white space are not allowed), a good method is
to put the domain name (or a domain literal IP address) of the host
on which the message identifier was created on the right-hand side of
the "@" (since domain names and IP addresses are normally unique),
and put a combination of the current absolute date and time along
with some other currently unique (perhaps sequential) identifier
available on the system (for example, a process id number) on the
left-hand side. Though other algorithms will work, it is RECOMMENDED
that the right-hand side contain some domain identifier (either of
the host itself or otherwise) such that the generator of the message
identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of the left-hand side within
the scope of that domain.
>> 4) Some people, for reasons I would classify as "vague", prefer to
>> generate their Message-IDs locally so their saved copy of the
>> message has the Message-ID in it.
>
>The reason you state seems precise rather than vague.
I mean, that's not a reason in my thinking? Like, WHY do people
want that? That's where things get vague when this came up before.
>> 7) There's not too much prior art here to crib from because of (3).
>
>The first-hop MTAs would be a source of prior art. Most probably let
>the domain part be given as configuration.
Well, I was talking about prior art from MUAs. For MTAs that represent
an email domain, it's relatively straightforward because they assume
that they're the only one generating Message-IDs for that email domain.
FWIW, I took a quick look at the MTAs Postfix and Sendmail; Postfix does
not seem to have any Message-ID-specific configuration knobs, it hardcodes
adding a Message-ID based on it's idea of the local hostname. Sendmail,
yes, it looks like you could change it if you really want to; it also
defaults to something based on the local hostname. I am personally
skeptical that people actually configure this.
And, well, we TRY to use the local hostname to generate the Message-ID
for the people who actually want that (because being unique is a MUST in
RFC 5322). But as we've seen there's not a fullproof way of doing that.
>I think the existing -messageid option which takes either ‘local’ or
>‘random’ should also accept ‘@...’ to allow the user to specify it.
>This stops using heuristics if the user prefers.
My personal feeling is that the people who (a) care about generating a
local Message-ID, and (b) actually care WHAT appears right of the '@'
either need to configure their system appropriately or write code to
change nmh behavior.
--Ken
- message-Id has localhost, Michael Richardson, 2023/12/29
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Ken Hornstein, 2023/12/29
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Michael Richardson, 2023/12/29
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Michael Richardson, 2023/12/29
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Ken Hornstein, 2023/12/29
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Michael Richardson, 2023/12/30
- Re: message-Id has localhost, David Levine, 2023/12/30
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Ken Hornstein, 2023/12/30
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Ralph Corderoy, 2023/12/31
- Re: message-Id has localhost,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Ralph Corderoy, 2023/12/31
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Ken Hornstein, 2023/12/31
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Andy Bradford, 2023/12/31
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Michael Richardson, 2023/12/31
- Message not available
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Ken Hornstein, 2023/12/31
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Andy Bradford, 2023/12/31
- Message not available
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Ken Hornstein, 2023/12/31
- Re: message-Id has localhost, Michael Richardson, 2023/12/31
Re: message-Id has localhost, Ralph Corderoy, 2023/12/30